Showing posts with label Marc Cohodes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marc Cohodes. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Thanks to Marc Cohodes, We’re Back to the Bad Old Days at Overstock.com

  • Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) shares have soared in recent weeks, much of that due to hype concerning its t0 (tZERO) venture by CEO Patrick Byrne, and publicity generated by his chief advocate, former money manager Marc Cohodes, who has abruptly (and with scant explanation) reversed his formerly critical stance.
  • The hype-driven increase in the share price has overshadowed a longstanding negative factor in evaluating the company: the behavior, character and credibility of the CEO, who has a longstanding practice of accounting games, harassing critics and making untrue statements.
  • As he promotes his Overstock position, Cohodes has adopted some of Byrne’s most aggressive tactics. He has sought to intimidate and silence critics in private communications, and has waged an aggressive public campaign harassing skeptics on social media.
  • Without critical scrutiny by independent analysts and the financial press, investors are ill-served and the market is not sufficiently exposed to contrary points of view.
Marc Cohodes
Marc Cohodes

Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne is good at many things, but not running a public company. The company has cooked the books for years at a time, and as explored by money manager Dave Kranzler in this Seeking Alpha blog, Overstock is a “dumpster fire waiting to happen,” a cash-burning vehicle run by a hype-happy chief executive and floating on a cloud of hot air.

But Byrne is very good at hype and suppressing negative coverage, and we’ve seen much of the former and little of the latter lately. Overstock shares have climbed. Dissenting voices exist only on social media. There is little press coverage of the company that is skeptical or probing, and puff pieces predominate. The CEO’s long-established record of deception and odd behavior has been disregarded, even distorted. One recent CNNMoney article rewrote history by turning Byrne’s infamous “Sith Lord” fantasy into a metaphor, and not the paranoid delusion, referring to an imaginary person, that it actually was.

Reporters and analysts who have covered Overstock in the past know that critical scrutiny exacts a price in the form of personal attacks, sometimes against one’s spouse and family. As has been chronicled over the years by myself and others, Byrne and his employees and surrogates have bullied, threatened and stalked analysts, the press, and even ordinary citizens who speak out against the company and his methods.

Overstock is still benefitting—and the market continues to lose out—from this campaign of intimidation.

Little if any attention is paid to the fact that Byrne’s credibility was shattered by a devastating 2016 libel verdict which excoriated Byrne and found that the truth "was of no consequence” to him and his minions. His Deep Capture smear site, which was the subject of the still-pending libel action, has never been repudiated, and is used from time to time to counteract the sparse negative press coverage. Most recently, as noted in my last blog, Deep Capture was deployed against a Daily Beast reporter, who was accused of going over to the “dark side” when he made queries for this article.

In an increasingly difficult journalism environment, news organs and journalists can be forgiven for not wanting to deal with that kind of harassment.

Byrne has never withdrawn any of his smears against the media, nor disavowed and apologized for the underhanded tactics that he has used against the media and his critics over the years. They included stalking journalists like Barry Rithotz and their families (including their minor children), on Facebook. My understanding is that Byrne very recently privately reaffirmed his pride in his previous behavior, even as he occasionally makes vague and also private expressions of regret to win over critics.

Marc Cohodes, a retired money manager, used to have no illusions about Byrne. His now-defunct hedge fund once was short the stock and was sued by the company. He said in a 2011 deposition that Byrne was “not fit to run a public company,” and in December 2013 he was telling me in an email, after Byrne was sued for consumer fraud in California, that “all he does is lie.” (Click on image to enlarge.)

Marc Cohodes Email to Sam Antar

This was a statement of fact, not opinion. Yet all of a sudden, poof! The liar of December 2013 has become the Boy Scout of 2017. Remember that we are not talking about a high school student who used to fib. This is a grown man, 55 years of age, who was CEO of the same public company then and now.

Cohodes misrepresents concerns about Byrne, which relate to his current integrity and honesty, as the “2005 investment playbook.” He has nothing much to say except that he was “wrong” about Byrne. When queried about Byrne’s past record of nutty behavior, his response is along the lines of “what are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?”

Cohodes began accumulating the stock in mid-2017 and started hyping it on October 10 at a Grant’s conference. His sudden, dramatic and unexplained “change of mind” about Byrne has paid off in multiple ways. My last Seeking Alpha blog described how his name mysteriously vanished from Deep Capture after he began to accrue shares, hype the company and slobber over Byrne.

Cohodes has not disputed the accuracy of my blog. He has called being mentioned in Deep Capture a “badge of honor.” That is hard to believe, considering that the references to him, though mild compared to the personal attacks directed at journalists targeted by Byrne, must have grated at this very thin-skinned and vain man.

Cohodes now describes Byrne, who he said did nothing but lie four years ago, as a “visionary.” He has never explained—and no member of the media has ever asked him—what happened, other than his acquisition of shares, turned a pathological liar into a “visionary.”

When it comes to the integrity of its CEO and the longtime practice of hounding critics, there isn’t a “new Overstock” or “new Patrick Byrne” any more than there was a “new Nixon” in 1968. Byrne, who has refrained from antics in recent months, now has Cohodes to roll down in the mud for him. He has become the kind of stock promoter that the Cohodes I knew a short while ago, before he loaded up on Overstock shares, would have found disgusting.

On Twitter, Cohodes tries to build a facade of respectability, thumping his chest over press freedom and over-eagerly praising journalists who haven’t crossed him. He spends a lot of time attacking CEOs who have only a fraction of Byrne’s evil track record. But his main passion is not shorting miscreants but shilling for one, and copying his new friend’s time-tested tactics.

In this blog I will describe how Cohodes and his allies have reprised the role that Byrne used to delegate to a small coterie of Internet hoods, led by a self-styled “black ops” hood named Judd Bagley. Bagley founded Deep Capture and engineered the cyberstalking and character assassination methods that made the company a laughingstock and toxic to analysts and the media, attacking critical reporters and boosting those who write superficial puff pieces or kiss his butt. Cohodes loves investigative reporting, except when it costs him money. He recently trashed CNBC, much as Byrne used to do, for not hyping Overstock.

Bagley founded the company’s much-hyped cryptocurrency initiative, but left when his forgery conviction and drug addiction made him too controversial even for Byrne. He is now director of communications at Evernym, Inc. in Utah.

While there is no new Overstock, but there is a new Bagley.

‘Lay off Byrne….. Leave him be, as a favor to me’

I first communicated with Marc Cohodes in late 2007 after I had already turned my life around, and had received favorable publicity by Joe Nocera (NY Times), Floyd Norris (NY Times) Brett Arends (Boston Herald), Herb Greenberg (Wall Street Journal and Market Watch), and many others (Documented here, here, and here) I had already taught about accounting fraud to dozens of law enforcement agencies, companies, professional groups, and universities. His public comments that he somehow fished me out of the gutter are, quite simply, lies.

Since he makes such a fuss about my failing to show him sufficient “loyalty,” I would like to point out that I have never done any compensated work for Cohodes, and he has never referred me to any person for paid work. I met him, stayed on his farm overnight when I taught at Stanford University, had dinner with him a few times, and attended his wedding. I gave him and his hedge fund friends a great deal of free forensic accounting advice and analysis. But I did not feel that either I was beholden to Cohodes or he to me. When I stopped by his house for dinner I did not sign away my conscience or agree to join him in pumping his future stock picks.

In late October, after I posted tweets showing mild concern about Byrne’s track record, I received the first of a series of incessant, manipulative, repetitive, sometimes delusional text messages from Cohodes, in which he portrayed himself as my long-lost savior and myself as an ungrateful child. (Full disclosure: I am a few years older than him.)

Tuesday, October 24, 2017, 1:34 PM Eastern Time

Marc Cohodes: Lay off Byrne… what are you trying to accomplish?

Sam Antar: Byrne has had plenty of time to make amends. He is exploiting you. To me, he’s defective merchandise. He hasn’t changed. He’s just bad product in a new box.

Marc Cohodes: Leave him be, as a favor to me…

He wore me down and I consented. But his demand for silence just to line his pockets grated at me. He had no right, none whatsoever, to shut me up. Who did he think he was? It began to get me upset. I had many other friends who I knew a lot better than Cohodes who were slandered by Byrne and felt betrayed by Cohodes. Their feelings were no less important than his, arguably a lot more so. He believed that since he now owned the stock he was more worthy of deference than the many who did not.

Also, I thought that Cohodes was, to be frank, “losing it.” He had copied me on a bullying, guilt-trip email he sent to investigative reporter and author Gary Weiss a week earlier that was just plain creepy. (I describe the email below.) Mutual friends were expressing bewilderment, as well as irritation, about his behavior.

I told Cohodes that I could not in good conscience remain silent on Byrne simply because he, now a large Overstock shareholder, didn’t want me to.

The text messages started coming again. He wouldn’t leave me alone or respect our difference of opinion. He had built up in his mind that I “owed him.” He reminded me of the Jackie Gleason character, “Maish,” in Requiem for a Heavyweight, putting on the phony guilt, trying to force Mountain Rivera (Anthony Quinn) to act against his conscience.

Saturday, November 4, 2017, 2:40 PM Eastern Time

Marc Cohodes: Terribly disappointed in you

Marc Cohodes: Terribly

Marc Cohodes: With all that has gone on you promised me you would stop and you just keep going

Marc Cohodes: That’s a shame

I didn’t respond to his con game. More texts came. I decided to respond.

Monday, November 6, 2017, 4:53 PM

Sam Antar: You are correct that I agreed to your request that I would stop criticizing Overstock and Byrne, but my conscience said otherwise. Byrne did a lot of bad things and has [I meant “hasn’t”] anything to make things right. In any case, take care and goodbye.

Sam Antar: Correction: Byrne hasn’t done anything to make things right.

Marc Cohodes: Really?

Sam Antar: People were hurt by his smears, libel, and innuendo

Marc Cohodes: Noone more than me…

Marc Cohodes: Suit yourself

Sam Antar: True, but this is not only about you. Other people were hurt by the bad things Byrne has done. In any case, all the best.

Marc Cohodes: Who Sam? Who can’t turn the page?

Sam Antar: Byrne could’ve turned the page a long time ago. He hasn’t. It’s up to him to make things right.

Marc Cohodes: Byrne has let it go… up to you Sam, It makes me sad I m (sic) so disposable to you…

Marc Cohodes: You gave me your word..

Sam Antar: Friends correct friends when they are wrong as I’m trying to explain why you are wrong. What you requested, I could not in good conscience carry out. Byrne’s lies are still all over the internet. He can still make things right. He has an earnings call this week. Let’s see what he does or doesn’t do.

The comment that Byrne “has let it go” bothered me. Let what “go”? That he had smeared people? Lied about them? How decent of him to “let it go” that he had behaved like a snake. It reminded me of the time Klaus Barbie was interviewed at his hideout in South America and said of his victims "I've forgotten. If they haven't, it's their concern.”

There was more infantile nagging, more manipulation, more guilt-tripping over imaginary “favors” he had done for me. He wouldn’t let up, but just kept going on and on. He was obsessed with getting me to shut up and join Team Overstock.

A few days later, Cohodes sent me a threat.

​Saturday, November 11, 2017 3:39 AM

​Marc Cohodes: The way this comes down Sam is that after all of the energy I focused on improving your reputation and business I dont have the heart to rip you apart. Its truly sickening how you behave towards the only person who stood by you when no one would. I will ignore you till you one day make it right again. [emphasis added]

I responded by reminding Cohodes that “I repaired my reputation long before I met you among the people who matter.” But Cohodes wasn’t interested in reality.

Byrne offers to take down Deep Capture—for a little while

On Nov. 17, Cohodes texted me to say, “I have arranged a truce.” I then was contacted by a third party who Marc also was hounding. The so-called “truce” Cohodes/Byrne offered was laughable. Byrne would temporarily, for an unspecified period of time, take down Deep Capture if Gary Weiss and I deleted all of our tweets! Our tweets could not be reinstated but Byrne could and would put Deep Capture back up at the press of a button. For some reason that remains a mystery to me, our tweets were causing major angst on Salt Lake City. But not enough for Byrne to do more than offer a “deal” that was an insult to the intelligence.

I was aware by this point that Cohodes had already gotten himself edited out of Deep Capture. I was also aware that even permanently deleting Deep Capture at this late date would have been an empty gesture.

What is needed is to repair the reputational damage he has caused, not a “truce” or a “deal” but for Byrne to do the right thing: to retract his lies, apologize, and replace his Deep Capture smear site with a big, fat statement of contrition. He needs to retract all the smears that he planted in the media and that still occasionally pop up. He needs to make amends, not manipulate. He needs to keep in mind that even a retraction and apology, years after the slanders he published, would not mean much to a lot of victims of his malice, and that many no doubt would rightly reject his apology.

Byrne has a lot of work to do if he really wants to set things straight, so he had better get going. Which he will do just as soon as pigs fly and hell freezes over. Byrne is the same old con artist and smear peddler that he has ever been.

The personal attacks begin

After this “truce” nonsense was rejected, Cohodes began to turn up the attacks flowing from his increasingly vitriolic, bitter Twitter feed. His attacks became hysterical and personal after I published on Nov. 27 the Seeking Alpha blog, "Marc Cohodes Buys Stock And Vanishes From Overstock CEO's Smear Site.” In that blog I described how Cohodes was carefully edited out of Deep Capture after he began accumulating a stock position that he has described as “not small” and started hyping the company and putting Byrne on a pedestal.

Cohodes responded with two types of personal attacks, which he has repeated monotonously to this day, sometimes using identical wording. He never responded to the substance of my last blog and I expect more of the same for this one.

First, he criticized me for not owning or shorting the stock. His opinion is that only people with conflicts of interest, people "talking their book,” are worth a damn. That is the exact opposite of how things are in the real world, as opposed to whatever imaginary life Cohodes occupies at his chicken farm.

I hope that the reporters who suck up to Cohodes, or that he sucks up to, remember that the next time he tries to pitch them on something. To Cohodes their opinion is worthless, unless they agree with him. They’re “bleacher bums” who don’t have “skin in the game.”

He also has whined endlessly that because I had dinner at his place, and once held a chicken in front of the camera, I had committed a grave personal betrayal. As noted, that was due to a personal history that existed only in his mind.

Cohodes became more and more out of control on his Twitter feed, calling me a "Pathetic individual and a sociopath." He even had the bad taste to invoke my son, who passed away a few years ago, saying that he “supported Sam when he needed it the most during his son’s death.” That makes it seem as if he was sitting with me, an arm around my shoulder, comforting me in my grief.

That would have been awfully sweet of Cohodes if he had done that. But he didn’t. It just happened in his fertile imagination. He sent me a very nice, very brief email, as did hundreds of other people who are not asking me to pump their portfolios. People who actually did visit me and who were there for me think that Cohodes is off his rocker and despise Overstock. None of them has ever tried to manipulate or guilt-trip me over that or anything.

For him to even mention my son in an effort to make money on stock was cheap, unethical and infuriating. My family was deeply offended, and I think that Cohodes was intentionally trying to not only promote his miserable stock holdings by that tactic but also cause pain to me and my family. Not even Patrick Byrne stooped to such disgusting tactics.

His followers are so blinded by their money lust that quite a few of them actually “liked” that tweet (see screenshot below). Among them was Evan Lorenz, Deputy Editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, where Cohodes made his Overstock pitch. Lorenz is “EL” in the screenshot. Lorenz is an active defender of Cohodes on Twitter, which doesn’t strike me as appropriate behavior for an editor of a respectable newsletter. (Click on image to enlarge.)

Marc Cohodes Twitter Post December 2, 2017

I wasn’t the only Overstock skeptic Cohodes has tried to bully and intimidate behind the scenes. His tactics have made people who knew him before Overstock concerned about the man.

One silencing effort that I became personally aware of, because he directly involved me, was an effort by Cohodes to bully investigative journalist Gary Weiss, a longtime critic of Overstock. It came after an exchange of tweets in October, initiated by Cohodes, on his embrace of Byrne. It was a perfectly civil difference of opinion, but it was unbearable to Cohodes.

Cohodes copied me and two journalists, Roddy Boyd and Bill Alpert, on a bizarre, bullying, creepy email that he sent Gary on Oct. 15, chiding him for the “shit” he was giving him.

By copying the three of us on his tantrum, Cohodes put myself, Roddy and Bill in an uncomfortable position, but particularly the two reporters. Cohodes is a major contributor to Roddy’s Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation (SIRF), one of the largest if not the largest donor in 2017. He should respect Roddy’s independence and not get him involved in anything having to do with his private squabbles or his portfolio interests. Bill had just written a brief article describing how Cohodes was now bullish on Overstock, and Cohodes showed little class in trying to get him involved.

Apparently, he felt that I and these two fine journalists would act as his tools and bring Gary to heel. But that didn’t happen and his crude intimidation effort was a flop. I’ve not posted the email and Gary’s response out of respect for the three journalists involved, but will do so if Cohodes lies about it.

Cohodes’s email used the same phony guilt-trip tactics that he later used on me. He made it seem as if Gary didn’t use his keyboard without calling Cohodes for his help and advice. Gary tells me that was a crock, that he has never met Cohodes and spoken to him only twice in his life, once five years ago and the other time in mid-2017 (the latter occasion being a complete waste of time). He was stunned that a person he barely knew would attempt to manufacture a relationship out of thin air to pressure him to act as he wanted on a stock promotion. It was, he said, some of the strangest behavior he has encountered in his many years of writing about the markets.

Cohodes doubles down on the smears

In recent weeks Cohodes has ratcheted up his embrace of Patrick Byrne’s smear tactics.

Some background: I first became interested in Overstock because Byrne used a technique that was unavailable to me when I was running the stock fraud at Crazy Eddie in the 1980s. Beginning around 2005, he deployed on his behalf a coterie of anonymous Internet trolls who swallowed his “naked short selling” conspiracy theory, and stalked and attacked critics of Overstock and other stocks that were being hyped at the time. Among their targets were members of the press, analysts and short-sellers.

At the time, women and Jewish journalists were subjected to misogyny and anti-Semitism by trolls on the Internet, mostly but not entirely anonymous. There were outright attacks on Jews by the likes of former Stratton Oakmont cold-caller Darren Saunders, and innuendo from Byrne. In 2005, blogger/money manager Jeffrey Matthews exposed what he recently described as “Byrne’s creepy, Bannon-like, anti-Semitic comments” in blog posts which can be found here and here. It should be noted that Matthews now is bullish on Overstock.

The widely followed blog The Stalwart observed at the time, referring to a Byrne missive discussed by Matthews, that “it's not a stretch to read an anti-Semitic tone into the letter.”

In his recent tweet, Matthews said that he hoped Byrne had “disowned” his comments. He hasn’t. He stands by everything he has said—including his anti-Semitic dog whistles.

As Byrne did back then, Cohodes uses a handful of Internet trolls as proxies. He retweets and likes their tweets and sometimes he is even photographed with them, so as to reward them for their “loyalty” by building up their following. But Cohodes has done worse than promote anonymous internet trolls.

Cohodes disseminates the thoughts of Ed Manfredonia

The most interesting Cohodes ally to emerge on Twitter in recent weeks is a resident of Queens named Edward Manfredonia.

I’ll let Manfredonia speak for himself. Here is a sampling of the literally thousands of posts and tweets that he has put out over the Internet. I’ve removed most names to not repeat the defamation:

Robert Morgenthau, New York County District Attorney, and [redacted] made certain that [the latter’s husband] could molest women. [Note: this is the most recent post on his blog, and has been on its front page for weeks.]

[redacted] publisher of [redacted], still sucking blood out of Medgar Evers College [headline]

[redacted--wife of publisher] has engaged in immigration fraud

In 2009 [redacted] entered into a sham marriage with [redacted], Publisher of [redacted] . . [redacted] refused to give in. [redacted] demanded her orifices.

Judge [redacted], an Orthodox Jew, permitted this perjury because [redacted] is Jewish and I am a Catholic.Thus, [the judge] believes that I am not quite a human being because I am not Jewish.

I stated that [a judge]’s many lies were due to the fact that [the judge] and [redacted] were Jewish

Robert “Tzaddick’ Morgenthau, who according to Sydney Schanberg does not indict his friends

[redacted] has willfully and intentionally lied to protect Russian killers of Americans because these killers were Jews.

[redacted] laundered money via a Jewish billionaire,

The [redacted---prominent publishers] covered up rape, money laundering and narcotics smuggling because [redacted], former chairman of the Amex and [redacted] wanted it covered up

[redacted] permitted 1,400 Americans, including children and pregnant women, to be murdered because he smeared my name.

Like [redacted,] [redacted, a prominent editor] regards Italian-Americans to be subhuman and will even falsely attribute two murders to the Italian Mafia to cover up the crimes of Russian Jews

He is known to anyone who has followed Overstock for any period of time. And if you haven’t, a glance at his Twitter feed speaks for itself. (No, I’m not going to link to that pile of dung.)

Cohodes began his rendezvous with Manfredonia by liking and retweeting a vicious personal attack on Gary Weiss on Nov. 11. (Click on image to enlarge.)

Marc Cohodes Retweets Edward Manfredonia

Cohodes later took down his retweet of that garbage, after, I understand, he was warned to do so by a colleague.

A few weeks later Cohodes was back to promoting Manfredonia with a vengeance, starting with this (click on image to enlarge):

Marc Cohodes Retweets Edward Manfredonia, December 9, 2017

A couple of days later he retweeted a lurid Manfredonia fabrication about Gary Weiss. Then he really hit bottom.

Aping his pal Byrne, a nutcase who has had no compunction about attacking the families of his critics, Cohodes “liked” a cowardly, disgusting attack not on Weiss but on Weiss’s long-deceased father, comparing this career U.S. Navy employee unfavorably with his own dad, whom he claimed was a war hero. (Click on image to enlarge.)

Marc Cohodes Likes Edward Manfredonia Tweet

Cohodes also liked two other Manfredonia tweets attacking Gary’s wife. The fact that Cohodes would retweet Manfredonia’s filth and approve of his vile attacks on family members shows the depths to which he has sunk, and how he has adopted Patrick Byrne’s gutter morality.

Roddy Boyd, himself a victim of slurs and smears from Byrne and many other fraudsters that he has exposed, expressed outrage. (Click on image to enlarge.)

Roddy Boyd Tweet About Overstock.com

He had this to say about Manfredonia after the latter began to infect his Twitter feed (click on image to enlarge):

Roddy Boyd Tweet About Edward Manfredonia

Cohodes cannot plead ignorance about Ed Manfredonia. Ed has been an outspoken Byrne fan since Deep Capture, which quoted and supported him, and a quick glance at his Twitter feed and blog would have made it clear to Cohodes the character of the person whose “work” he was disseminating.

At this point I have to interject that Manfredonia insists, over and over again, that he is not anti-Semitic. He repeatedly cites a 2007 letter that he solicited from the ADL. The letter is the lead illustration on his Twitter page. He says that the letter exonerates him from charges of anti-Semitism. Patrick Byrne and his henchman Judd Bagley agree. In a Deep Capture post on Feb. 9, 2008, Byrne enthusiastically endorsed Manfredonia and, citing that same ADL letter, insisted that he was not anti-Semitic. His henchman Bagley called him a “good and principled man.”

In fact, Byrne lied about the contents of the ADL missive.

The letter, still hosted on a Bagley website, simply says that the group was not getting involved in the dispute that Manfredonia brought to their attention (The ADL gets involved in major issues, not disputes between private parties). After Manfredonia resurfaced as a Cohodes ally, the former ADL lawyer who wrote that letter, Yael Mazar, confirmed to Gary Weiss via email: “The letter I wrote on behalf of ADL does not make any determination at all. It simply says that ADL cannot be involved nor make a determination.”

Byrne has never repudiated his lie about the ADL letter, his enthusiastic embrace of Manfredonia or the anti-Semitic innuendo that Jeffrey Matthews highlighted.

I don’t believe that Cohodes is anti-Semitic. What I do know is that he has lost all sense of proportion on Overstock.com, and is completely reckless and unscrupulous. He will stop at nothing to hype the hell out of that stock and to attack people who get in his way.

I’m sure that Cohodes will respond to the above by saying that all of the above are irrelevant to the new, vibrant, changed Overstock and its “visionary” CEO. So why has he made Manfredonia relevant? Why has Cohodes retweeted him and liked his tweets? Why have his proxies and surrogates endorsed and encouraged Manfredonia?

If Byrne’s smear campaign is a thing of the past, why has Cohodes kept it going? How can Cohodes go on and on about how Overstock has changed when he has made sure that it has not, that it is still a company you daren’t criticize?

Cohodes threatens to dox a critic

As you can see from this Dec. 11 tweet (below), Cohodes does not distinguish between bona fide market observers, such as Jeffrey Matthews, and anonymous trolls. Note also that in this tweet Cohodes boasts that he got these people into the stock early on, before his big pump in October. (Click on image to enlarge.)

Marc Cohodes Tweet, December 11, 2017

Cohodes endorses and enables trolls who hide behind anonymous handles while attacking Overstock critics. Anonymity is OK with Cohodes—except when that anonymous person is critical of Overstock. Cohodes has posted obsessively, sometimes multiple times a day, to intimidate and hector the Overstock critic “unemon1,” who has posted skeptical views concerning the company’s blockchain venture.

Rather than respond substantively, he has attacked this person and recently posted a creepy threat to “dox” him. (Click on image to enlarge.)

Marc Cohodes Tweet, December 15, 2017

As I pointed out in my last blog, doxing threats were frequently used by Bagley even before he founded the Deep Capture site.

Cohodes is getting more and more out-of-control in his tweets. A couple of weeks ago he tweeted this violent fantasy (click on image to enlarge):

Marc Cohodes Tweet, December 7, 2017

Cohodes recycles the same angry invective over and over. Here’s a typical one from yesterday. (Click on image to enlarge.)

Marc Cohodes Tweet, December 19, 2017

What is this childish name-calling supposed to be, an attack on my credibility? It isn’t. It’s an attack on Cohodes’s credibility, and a convincing one.

It’s sad to see a person who used to challenge bullies become a bully himself, in the service of an even bigger bully.

That line from Pogo comes to mind: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

Conclusion: The Media Needs to Wake Up

In his Overstock pump, Marc Cohodes has justified everything he has said and done on the basis of the stock market performance of this ridiculously hyped company. It is as if to him there is no such thing as right or wrong, just how well he and Byrne pump the stock. If the stock goes up, everything he says is right. If it goes down, everything he says is wrong.

I would suggest that a portfolio is no substitute for a conscience.

Cohodes frequently falsely suggests to his peanut gallery on Twitter that my criticism of his lionizing of Patrick Byrne, and my concerns about the CEO's integrity, are the same as a recommendation to sell or short the stock. Investors need to make up their own minds based on the facts. I am not an investor, long or short.

I’ve been out of the stock market for almost ten years, and I have never recommended a buy or a sell, much less a short sale, of this or any stock. I certainly would not recommend a buy or sell of a stock that is being openly manipulated like this one, a subject of irrational hype, in which critics are subjected to personal attacks, and in which the media is too co-opted, indifferent or intimidated to engage in skeptical reporting.

In reading various Twitter discussions among journalists about Overstock, it is striking how reporters I deeply respect keep rationalizing why they do not write critically about the CEO some of them found to be so intriguing in 2007. I think some soul-searching is in order.

Cohodes has been spared the scrutiny that he deserves. The profiles of him that have appeared recently have been one-sided and superficial. Whether this is due to laziness or his cultivation of the press is hard to say.

Cohodes has built a reputation on his stock picks, and his word, amplified by the financial press, has driven up the price of the stock. But he has no verifiable recent track record.

We know that the last time he ran money for other people was when he was manager of a fund called Copper River. It collapsed in 2008. It was the only short fund to meet such a fate in what was otherwise a great year for short-sellers. He blames Goldman Sachs, but I wonder if Cohodes wasn’t at least equally to blame. No one forced him to keep his assets at Lehman Brothers even after it was plain that the company might be the next to go belly-up.

Here’s hoping that someday soon the media will wake up and give this company and stock promoter the skeptical attention they warrant.

It won’t be pleasant. Manfredonia has begun to include Roddy Boyd in his attacks. Some of them may get slime thrown at them and their families, perhaps even parents and spouses as Gary was. But the public deserves no less.

Written by,

Sam Antar

Recommended Reading:

Inside the Always Nasty, Frequently Sexist, and Often Litigious World of Financial Twitter, by Michelle Celarier, Institutional Investor, August 1, 2018

5,000 Reasons Why the Overstock.com Saga is Crazier Than Ever, by Gary Weiss Blog, January 30, 2018

Stock Promoter Marc Cohodes Issues a Death Threat, by Sam Antar, YouTube, November 18, 2018


Disclosure:

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. Today, I advise law enforcement agencies and professionals about white-collar crime and train them to catch the crooks. I perform forensic accounting services for law firms and other clients.

I have no investment position in Overstock.com shares, long or short.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Marc Cohodes Buys Stock & Vanishes From Overstock CEO’s Smear Site

Summary
  • In recent months, every disparaging reference to former hedge fund manager Marc Cohodes was removed from Deep Capture, a website that viciously smears the financial press and critics of Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne.
  • Cohodes acquired a position in Overstock shares (NASDAQ: OSTK) beginning in May 2017, and hyped Overstock at a widely publicized Grant’s conference on Oct. 10, saying the stock was going “way the f**k up.” His praise of the company caused the shares to climb as much as 8.7% on the day he spoke at the conference.
  • By late October 2017, Cohodes’ name was completely excised from the Deep Capture posts that had falsely claimed he improperly colluded with the press. The names of journalists and other Byrne targets were not removed from those posts. A post referring to him favorably was not touched.
  • Coinciding with his vanishing from Deep Capture, Cohodes has lavishly praised Byrne, falsely contended that the smear campaign is a “legacy” issue of no current relevancy, derided Byrne’s victims as “haters,” and said that targets of Byrne’s smears should “let it go” even though Byrne has never retracted his defamatory claims or closed his website.
  • Removal of Cohodes’ name from Deep Capture was not disclosed by Cohodes or Byrne, or by the website.
People change their minds about stocks and CEOs all the time. But I am deeply troubled by the way a retired money manager named Marc Cohodes, who once was sued by Overstock.com, has morphed into a shrill advocate of the company. He also has become a tireless shill for its CEO, Patrick Byrne, a con artist who has cooked the books, attacked the press and stalked critics.

His sudden conversion has been written up in Bloomberg and Barron’s, but with all due respect to the fine journalists who wrote those articles, they did not tell the full story.

What these articles did not point out was that Byrne has done Cohodes a really big favor in return for becoming both a shareholder and a lapdog—a favor so significant that I believe that it may be construed as compensation:

In recent months, every disparaging reference to Cohodes has been removed from posts that had previously attacked him on Deep Capture, a fake news site Byrne created in 2007 to harass, stalk and smear critics, short-sellers and the media.

It is true that the Deep Capture site was discredited by the forgery conviction of the one of the founders and longtime operators of the site, Byrne aide Judd Bagley, and by a devastating 2016 libel verdict which excoriated Byrne and found that the truth "was of no consequence” to him and Deep Capture. However, despite this, I have no doubt that removal of his name was worth a great deal to the hypersensitive, egotistical Cohodes.

According to Bloomberg, Cohodes commenced his stock positions in Overstock in May 2017 and added to them after meeting with Byrne a month later. He appeared at a Grant’s conference on Oct. 10, giving an enthusiastic promotion of the stock, which immediately staged a run-up, aided by Cohodes’ intense hype and resulting publicity.

After buying the stock, Cohodes lavished praise on Byrne at the Grant's conference saying "I admire him" and through his Twitter feed, despite his history of atrocious behavior (detailed below).

After taking his Overstock position, Cohodes also engaged in a vigorous behind-the-scenes effort to pressure critics to stop criticizing Byrne on Twitter. He has made phone calls and sent emails and text messages to various parties, myself included, recently telling me to “lay off Byrne.”

I could not do so in good conscience because Byrne has never retracted a single one of his lies. In addition, Byrne has never apologized to me for his vicious attacks against me in retaliation for the accounting shenanigans that I exposed, that he denied, and in which I was vindicated—Overstock was forced to restate its financial reports.

Cohodes has never provided any facts to support his view that Byrne has changed in any way whatsoever—that his character had improved, that he is no longer dishonest, no longer ready to cook the books if it suited his purposes, no longer willing to stalk and smear critics. In fact, by word and deed, Byrne has reiterated that he stands by everything he has said and done.

Nevertheless, Cohodes has been insistent, constantly nagging me directly and through third parties. He even made up out of thin air a personal history between us that never existed, to support his claim that I owed him an obligation to shut up about Byrne. It was strange and creepy, it was childish, and it made no sense.

It is still strange and creepy, but now it is starting to make sense.

How Byrne Expunged Cohodes From Deep Capture

A comparison of Deep Capture posts as they currently appear, vs. recordings of their past appearance on the Wayback Machine, shows how Cohodes was edited out of disparaging posts on the website. Those posts were not removed and were not edited in any other way. The conspiracies and attacks on journalists remain on the site to this day, but with Cohodes no longer mentioned.

For instance, an attack on the integrity of journalist Bethany McLean, “Fortune Magazine Stonewalls Exposure of Bethany McLean Perfidy,” looked like this as recently as Sept. 29, 2017, according to the Wayback Machine (click on image below to enlarge):


As of October, 23, 2017, two weeks after the Grant’s conference, it looked like this according to Google's cache (click on image below to enlarge):


The editing took place sometime between Sept. 29 and Oct. 23. The Grant’s conference, as noted, was on Oct. 10.

Observe that Byrne has changed “Marc Cohodes” to “[redacted].” This implies that his name was removed by some legal or official mechanism, when in fact his name was taken out to make Cohodes happy.

There was just one mention of Cohodes in that post. But there were numerous references to him in another smear job “Bethany McLean: Your Benefit of the Doubt is Hereby Revoked,” which quoted emails that were obtained through pretrial discovery in a lawsuit not involving Overstock. Its purpose was to show a conspiracy between Cohodes and McLean and it attacked the integrity of McLean, Roddy Boyd and Herb Greenberg (all investigative reporters). The three are sneeringly referred to as “journalists,” using scare quotes, and McLean, the principal target of this post, is attacked at length.

The Deep Capture post looked like this as of Sept. 29, 2017, according to the Wayback Machine (click on image below to enlarge):


But by October 22, twelve days after Cohodes did his pump job at Grant’s conference, and coinciding with his pleas to myself and others to shut up about Byrne, every reference to Cohodes was cut out of that post. It now appeared like this, according to Google's cache (click on image below to enlarge):


It was like that throughout the post. Rather than delete it entirely—he was still on board with the underlying conspiracy theory and attacks on journalists—Byrne removed Cohodes’ name from this Judd Bagley post, which turned a routine exchange between reporter and source into the convening of an evil cabal.

Byrne even retained the ridiculous suggestion that “the emails you’ve just read are the real reason Bethany McLean made a sudden departure from the world of business journalism earlier this year.” That’s a reference to her departure from Fortune to work for the prestigious Vanity Fair magazine. That would be considered upward mobility anywhere but in Byrne’s nutty world—and he still feels that way.

That nonsense was retained. McLean’s, Boyd’s and Greenberg’s names were retained. The attack on their integrity remained. Cohodes, however, was gone.

Another example is a crude 2008 Byrne smear job on journalist Roddy Boyd.

It still retained Cohodes’ name on Oct. 13, 2017, three days after the Grant’s conference, according to the Wayback Machine (click on image below to enlarge):


But sometime between October 13 and October 20, 2017, according to Google's cache, the article was edited to look like this (click on image below to enlarge):


Cohodes’ name was removed from the end of the sentence “Hedge funds can do no wrong, particularly if they belong to a small constellation whose brightest lights are Stevie Cohen, Dan Loeb, David Einhorn, Jim Chanos, and David Rocker.” He was retroactively removed from the conspiracy nine years after Byrne concocted this rubbish.

The same editing job took place in post after post in which Cohodes was negatively mentioned prior to becoming a Byrne fan and shareholder. In every instance he was gone by the latter part of October, after he had acquired shares and had become a Patrick Byrne cheerleader.

The only article I could find in which Cohodes’ name was retained was a 2009 Deep Capture post in which Byrne praised Cohodes while attacking his former partner David Rocker. But if Byrne was taking a shine to Cohodes as far back as 2009, or at least trying to drive a wedge between him and Rocker, why did he wait eight years before cutting his name out of Deep Capture?

What happened to cause this sudden removal of his name—as if we didn’t know?

Cohodes likes to make a big show of giving to journalism nonprofits, and he praises journalists he claims to admire. He sometimes beats his chest and “defends” reporters who have been intimidated by CEOs. But he does so in self-serving fashion on Twitter in conjunction with his attacks on short targets, whose CEOs he scorns even though most are not nearly as bad as Byrne.

He only seems to care about journalists, it seems, if they are not writing negatively about his favorite stock. If they do, they are “haters” and “bleacher bums.”

Ironically, Byrne did much the same thing over the years, praising some journalists while attacking others.

Deep Capture and Byrne’s obsession with critics

Even before Deep Capture was created in 2007, Byrne was obsessed with criticism of the company and, directly and through surrogates, viciously attacked critics and tried to co-opt them. He has never repudiated his tactics and continues to employ them to this day.

In a Fortune article, McLean revealed that Byrne taunted her in misogynistic fashion while she was researching the story, saying in an email “why exactly did you become a reporter? Giving Goldman traders blowjobs didn't work out?"

His vicious personal attacks on McLean continued when he established his Deep Capture fake news website in 2007, and they forced her to stop covering the company, as she recently told Columbia Journalism Review.

Byrne was believed to have advance knowledge of a 2006 SEC subpoena of journalists who wrote negative articles about the company. After an uproar, the subpoenas were later withdrawn.

When Bloomberg columnist Susan Antilla wrote a column on his smear campaign in early 2007, Byrne’s operative Judd Bagley attacked her viciously on a stock message board. Deep Capture was established later that year. Byrne has denied that it is run by Overstock, but he conceded that he is Deep Capture’s publisher and “ultimately controls what is published on the website” in sworn deposition testimony.

I have written frequently about Byrne and Deep Capture, as have many others. One of the most notorious episodes took place in 2009, when Byrne used Judd Bagley to pretext journalists and critics (including me) to gather information about their family members (including minor children) and friends by setting up a phony profile on Facebook under the name Larry Bergman. That got Bagley kicked off Facebook. Barry Ritholtz wrote about it at the time, as did others. Even though it was a public relations disaster that would shame most CEOs, Byrne expressed no regret.

In February 2009, I exposed violations of accounting rules by Overstock.com that allowed it to fabricate a Q4 2008 profit rather than properly report a loss in that quarter and overstate its reported income in later quarters. Byrne retaliated by personally attacking me on a stock market chat board, during various earnings calls, and in the press, in an effort to discredit me. During that time, Judd Bagley injected himself into my divorce proceedings by contacting my former spouse, who ignored him.

Bagley’s illegal actions were a clear retaliation for my pointing out the company's accounting violations. My work was vindicated when, at my request, the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated Overstock.com and forced it to restate its financial reports to correct its illegal accounting practices.

Again, Byrne has stood by everything I’ve just described.

Cohodes dissembles to protect Patrick Byrne

Cohodes has said that he “bets the jockey, not the horse.” Until recently he viewed Byrne as a crazy fool. During deposition testimony in a lawsuit between Overstock and Goldman Sachs, Cohodes described Byrne as a nut who was not fit to run a public company (click on image below to enlarge).



Cohodes now says he has changed his mind. He has not explained, either publicly or privately, what facts support his view that Byrne is not crazy, never has been crazy, and is and was fit to run a public company. That’s because there aren’t any.

Byrne has not changed one bit. Even his widely debunked naked short selling conspiracy theory has been cited by Byrne in explaining his widely ballyhooed effort to replace Wall Street’s clearing mechanisms with blockchain technology.

Cohodes has claimed on Twitter—without disclosing his Deep Capture vanishing act—that concerns about Byrne’s character and his attacks on the media are all “legacy bullshit” dating back “thirteen years”.

Here is a typical recent Cohodes tweet pumping Overstock, slobbering over Byrne, disparaging his victims as “haters,” and hyping a new Overstock that suddenly materialized after he took a position in the stock.


This kind of cynical behavior is amoral and insulting to Byrne’s numerous targets, including myself, his ex-partner David Rocker, other short-sellers, bloggers, analysts, and journalists like Carol Remond, Joe Nocera, Herb Greenberg, Gary Weiss, Roddy Boyd and Bethany McLean, all of whom are currently under attack on Deep Capture.

By whitewashing the past, dissembling about the present, and mocking Byrne’s victims, Cohodes has misled investors about a risk factor that is unique to Overstock: its CEO, whose behavior has damaged Overstock’s reputation.

Cohodes has every right to have his own opinion about Byrne. But as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once put it, “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

Byrne’s smear site is alive and well. Not a word on Deep Capture—or any of the other venues Byrne and his surrogates have used to spread their lies—has ever been repudiated by Byrne. He has not recently created fresh posts smearing journalists and critics for the simple reason that his tactics work.

There hasn’t been any negative media coverage of Byrne since November 2015, when M.L. Nestel wrote an article on Byrne and chairman Jonathan Johnson for the Daily Beast. As he prepared that article, he sent over to Overstock some questions that Byrne did not like. As a “shot across the bow,” Byrne’s aide Mark Mitchell attacked Nestel on Deep Capture, saying he had gone over to the “dark side.”

Byrne renewed his attacks on the media in an interview with Jesse Ventura on the Kremlin’s RT network on November 3, just three weeks ago. Byrne surrogate Evren Karpak, a Byrne hireling since 2007 and now a Deep Capture “partner,” unleashed a vicious personal attack on investigative journalist Gary Weiss and myself on a stock message board on November 23, just four days ago.

Byrne is also vigorously fighting the libel suit that I mentioned earlier, which resulted in a lengthy judgment so scathing that even the Utah newspapers reported it. The judge dissected in detail Byrne’s deployment of lies to attack his victims. An appellate court hearing is scheduled for January 2018.

Byrne has never withdrawn his vicious lies concerning the plaintiff in that libel suit, Altaf Nazerali, never apologized, never retracted the blog posts that smeared him. Instead he is fighting that suit tooth and nail, even though his case was so thin that he didn’t produce a single witness in his behalf.

Clearly an active corporate attack site, with a staff ready to spring into action at a moment’s notice, a Byrne surrogate smearing a journalist just four days ago, and a team of lawyers fighting a libel suit at a hearing scheduled for January 2018—none of this is either “legacy” nor “bullshit,” and is happening now, not “thirteen years ago.” Opposing such a CEO does not make one a “hater.” The correct word is “rational."

Cohodes likes to brag about how he has “skin in the game” while Byrne’s critics are “in the bleachers” and are “bums.” That of course turns ethical behavior on its head, by saying that only people who have a conflict of interest have a right to speak out about corporations and CEOs. People with no conflict of interest, in Cohodes’ view, occupy “cheap seats.” (That would include, as I noted earlier, all of the journalists Cohodes seeks to cultivate.)


But when it comes to Byrne’s smear campaign, the Overstock CEO saw to it that Cohodes no longer has skin in that game.

Deep Capture has been used for blackmail

The libel suit I referred to above, brought by Canadian businessman Altaf Nazerali, revealed in detail how Byrne and his surrogates systematically published fabrications on his Deep Capture site. It also exposed how Byrne sought to use the site for blackmail.

According to pretrial deposition testimony cited in the court judgment:

After his telephone conversation with the plaintiff, [Byrne surrogate Mark] Mitchell emailed Mr. Byrne “this is going to be fun” and “I am going to talk to him on Friday and see if I can meet him in person”, and also “unless you [Byrne] have objections I am also going to suggest to him (I can do this in a roundabout way) that while I consider the facts to be correct, I am open to changing the story if he can provide other verifiable information that would be valuable”, and “I might even suggest that I will be willing to remove his name from the story altogether if he were to provide me with, say, trading records of global terrorist Yasin al- Qadi”, and lastly “if Nazerali agrees, nothing lost, after he gives me the information I will just put him back in the story. Sleazy, but, well it is what it is”; (Emphasis added)

The libel suit judgment also cites a recorded phone conversation in which Nazerali told Mitchell about errors in the Deep Capture post. After Nazerali enumerated the errors, Mitchell said “the arrangement that I usually have with sources is that if they’re helping with a story, I leave them out.”

In addition to using Deep Capture for blackmail, his surrogate Bagley attempted to blackmail an anonymous blogger who wrote several posts exposing Bagley’s cyber-stalking and smear campaign.

In the email below, Bagley threatened to “dox” the blogger if he did not desist (click on image to enlarge).


This attempt to blackmail the blogger, which received attention at the time in Dealbreaker, did not succeed because the blogger would not be scared off. Bagley made good on his threat two days after his extortion attempt was exposed. The blogger didn’t care. He kept up his good work for months afterwards.

I believe that this is important context in evaluating the removal of Cohodes’ name from Deep Capture. I don’t believe that Cohodes was blackmailed, but the foregoing shows that Byrne will go to any lengths to remove unflattering content from the Internet.

Conclusion

It is possible that Byrne removed Cohodes’ name from Deep Capture out of the goodness of his heart, without even thinking about how Cohodes was showering him with praise, and was driving up the price of a stock in which Byrne is the largest shareholder.

It is possible that Byrne was not aware that Cohodes was now a shareholder, was not aware of the Grant’s conference and Cohodes’ statement that the shares are “going way the fuck up.”

It is possible that Byrne did not know the share price climbed as much as 8.7% the day Cohodes pumped it at Grant’s.

It is possible that Byrne did not read the Bloomberg and Barron’s articles, and thus could not possibly have had any intent to compensate Cohodes for any of the foregoing.

It is possible that Cohodes had no idea his name was being cut out of the Deep Capture articles where he was under attack.

All this is possible, but not very probable.

Everyone who knows Cohodes can attest to his vanity and his sensitivity to criticism. Even his Twitter profile makes that clear, saying that “the best motivator is disrespect,” which suggests that the converse is true, that he craves stroking. Therefore I do not believe that his name was expunged from Deep Capture without Cohodes knowing about it.

If that indeed is his alibi, one has to wonder whether the rest of his due diligence on companies he analyses is equally incomplete and sloppy. I no longer have much respect for Cohodes’ judgment and character, but I find it hard to believe that he is that inept.

Written by,

Sam Antar

Recommended Reading:

Recommended Reading:

5,000 Reasons Why the Overstock.com Saga is Crazier Than Ever, by Gary Weiss Blog, January 30, 2018

Stock Promoter Marc Cohodes Issues a Death Threat, by Sam Antar, YouTube, November 18, 2018

How to NOT Do Investigative Journalism, by Tracy Coenen, The Fraud Files Blog, November 13, 2019

Why Roddy Boyd’s Ethics Failure Matters, Tracy Coenen, The Fraud Files Blog, November 14, 2019

Disclosure:

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. Today, I advise law enforcement agencies and professionals about white-collar crime and train them to catch the crooks. I perform forensic accounting services for law firms and other clients.

I have no investment position in Overstock.com shares, long or short.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Do Nu Skin Inventory Red Flags Spell Trouble Ahead?

Last Friday morning, a comment posted on Twitter by Marc Cohodes about Nu Skin Enterprises (NYSE: NUS), a Utah based multi-level marketing company, caught my curiosity. Cohodes is a legendary short-seller with an excellent track record and looks for "fads, frauds, and failures" involving public companies. He wrote, "The Clown who runs NUS tried to squeeze shorts. Screw him! He will get what's coming to him in spades one day. Too much Inventory is an issue." Afterwards, I decided to take a close look at Nu Skin's financial reports. So far, my first issue is that management's explanation for its massive increase in inventory levels does not square against its own historical numbers, guidance it gave to investors, and analysts' consensus estimates. In addition, Nu Skin may be have to take significant margin reductions to unload its excess inventory and possibly have to recognize a material impairment charge against inventory in a future period.

Background

Generally, if a company is efficient at managing its inventory levels, its inventory and cost of goods sold should grow in tandem over time. If a company becomes more efficient at managing its inventory levels, its cost of goods sold will grow faster than inventory reflecting shorter periods of time to turnover its inventory into revenues. However, over the last seven quarters, Nu Skin's reported inventory levels grew significantly faster than its growth in cost of goods sold resulting in longer periods of time to turn its inventory into sales.

A more troubling issue is that Nu Skin's reported revenues exceeded its own maximum revenue projections while its inventory turnover decreased for each of the last seven quarters. In two of those seven quarters, Nu Skin beat its maximum revenue guidance by over $90 million. Generally, it provided revenue guidance for the current quarter approximately 4 to 5 weeks into same quarter. Therefore, Nu Skin already possessed several weeks of sales data before it provided revenue guidance for the entire 13 week quarterly period. Since Nu Skin's reported revenues exceeded its most optimistic forecasts within a relatively short period of time, its inventory turnover should have increased because it should have ended the period with fewer inventories on hand than it had anticipated. However, an analysis of Nu Skin's numbers indicates that it is taking progressively longer periods of time to turn its inventory into sales.

Calculations

Days-Sales-in-Inventory (DSI) measures the number of days it takes for a company to turn its inventory into sales. DSI is computed as follows: (Ending inventory/Cost of goods sold during the period) X number of days in period. If the DSI number grows over time it indicates that a company's inventory turnover is decreasing because it is taking longer periods of time for a company to turn its inventory into sales. In general, a growing DSI could indicate one or more of the following potential red flags:
  1. A company is mismanaging its inventory,
  2. A company may be required to reduce gross margins in future periods to sell slow moving products to normalize inventory levels,
  3. A company may be required to take a one-time material impairment charge against earnings in a future period to write-down to the cost of slow moving or obsolete inventory to its lower market value, or
  4. A company is possibly inflating inventory numbers to overstate income by either fabricating inventory numbers or by its failure to write-down inventory to market value.
Click on the image below to enlarge it.



Note: In Q4 2013, Nu Skin reduced its revenues and selling expense going back at least three years to correct an accounting error in classifying certain rebates. According to the company, the reclassification had no effect on gross profit, operating income, net income or comprehensive income, the consolidated balance sheet or cash flow (2013 10-K report page 50). However, the error caused relatively small changes in previously reported revenues. For 2012 and 2013, I used the revised quarterly revenue numbers tucked inside page 68 of its 2013 10-K report. However, Nu Skin did not disclose the effect of the revenue correction on 2011's quarterly numbers. Therefore, I used 2011's quarterly revenue numbers as they were originally reported in filings with the S.E.C. to make comparisons against management's 2011 quarterly revenue guidance. The error had no effect on DSI calculations.

Huge surge in inventories during latest quarter

In the latest quarter ended March 31, 2014 (Q1 2014), Nu Skin's reported revenues exceeded its maximum revenue projection by $1.1 million. Its cost of goods sold increased by 18.6% over the previous year's first quarter (Q1 2013). However, its inventories mushroomed 175.5% to $410.7 million compared to $149.1 million in the same period of the previous year. It took Nu Skin 346.4 days to turn its inventory into sales in Q1 2014 compared to only 149.1 days in Q1 2013, an increase of 132.3% extra days to sell its products. In Q1 2014, DSI was over three times the level it was in Q1 2011.

Rising inventory levels don't square with management's explanation

In its Q1 2014 10-Q report, Nu Skin claimed that, "we built a large amount of inventory during the first quarter for planned product launches in 2014...." However, its disproportionate buildup in inventories does not square against its own historical numbers, guidance it gave to investors, and analysts' consensus projections. DSI has been progressively growing from 2011 levels. (Click on the image below to enlarge it.)


In Q1 2013, Nu Skin turned its inventory into sales 0.6 times (cost of goods sold $90 million/inventory $149.1 million). In Q1 2014, its inventory mushroomed to $410.7 million. To maintain the same rate of inventory turnover in Q1 2014 as it did in Q1 2013, Nu Skin would have needed to sell inventory costing it $247.9 million during Q1 2014 (Q1 2013 inventory turnover 0.6 X Q1 2014 inventory $410.7 million). In Q1 2014, Nu Skin realized revenues on its inventory at a multiple of 6.29 times its cost ($671.1 million revenues/$106.7 million cost of goods sold). Therefore, the approximate amount of revenues required for Nu Skin to maintain its historical level of inventory turnover without eroding gross profit margins was $1.559 billion for that quarter.

However, Nu Skin reported only $671.1 million revenues for Q1 2014. In May 2014, Nu Skin projected only $700 million of revenues for Q2 2014. The current analyst consensus estimate for Q2 2012 is $712.2 million in revenues, Q3 2014 is $858.5 million in revenues, and Q4 2014 is $948.2 million in revenues. The analyst consensus estimate for revenues in full year 2014 is $3.19 billion, slightly higher than revenues of $3.17 billion reported for 2013.

There are plenty of other issues of concern involving Nu Skin's multi-level marketing business model, domestic and foreign regulatory issues, its apparent dislike of whistleblowers and financial disclosures, but it will have to wait for another day. If Nu Skin's management does not act like mature grownups, I might make investigating and reporting about the company my new hobby. Right now, I have my doubts on management's story about its disproportionately huge rise in inventory levels.

Written by:

Sam E. Antar

Disclosure

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped my cousin Eddie Antar and other members of his family mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. I committed my crimes in cold-blood for fun and profit, and simply because I could. If it weren't for the heroic efforts of the FBI, SEC, Postal Inspector's Office, US Attorney's Office, and class action plaintiff lawyers who investigated, prosecuted, and sued me, I would still be the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie today. I do not want or seek forgiveness for my vicious crimes from my victims. My past sins are unforgivable.

There is a saying, "It takes one to know one." I've done professional work for the FBI, IRS, SEC, Justice Department, and other federal and state law enforcement agencies in training them to identify fraud and catch white-collar criminals. Often, I refer cases to them as an independent whistleblower. In addition, I teach white-collar crime classes for various government entities, professional organizations, businesses, and colleges and universities. In addition, I perform forensic accounting services for law firms and other clients.

I do not own any Nu Skin securities long or short and I have no financial relationship with Marc Cohodes, but in 2011 he did name a rooster after me. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Nu Skin's auditors, has sponsored many events where I appeared as a speaker on accounting irregularities, securities fraud, and other white-collar crime.